How to identify an incipient Detached Retina

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, May 20, 2007.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Vision Concern.

    An sudden increase in floaters can indicate
    incipient detached retina. See:

    If you over -6 diopters myopic, the risk
    of a detached retina is 1 in 20.

    Just one man's opinion.

    otisbrown, May 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Ms.Brainy Guest


    Is it true that you had a detached retina? Was it before or after (or
    perhaps while)you cured your myopia? Do you have data of the risk of
    reformed myopes? Please tell!
    Ms.Brainy, May 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    the original title of this thread is about the signs and symptoms of
    retinal detachment. and now you make a stupid statement like "the
    cause of a detached retina is nothing difficult to understand" and
    then proceed to talk a bunch of hogwash about vision improvement. why
    would a supposed "kid" even post on a topic about retinal detachment--
    just admit you don't know anything about it. And why does Otis post
    on the topic-- he doesn't know anything about it except what he might
    have read from experts who have written about it. As we all know,
    Otis has ZERO training in vision and the eye and ZERO clinical
    experience. he just has a pet theory and he thrusts it on everyone
    whether they want to hear it or not.

    regarding the issue of the signs and symptoms of retinal detachment:
    - abrupt increase in the number of floaters
    - sensations of flashing lights
    - reduced vision in a sector of the visual field ("like a veil
    covering a portion of the visual field")
    - reduced vision or blur in one eye of recent onset

    there are others. and vision improvement has NOTHING to do with it.

    and don't try that BS crap about myopia progressing to retinal
    detachment so therefore we should all try some kind of vision
    BEEN SHOWN TO WORK. don't try to claim that the "majority opinion"
    tries to ignor vision improvement blah blah blah. the majority
    opinion also ignors the notion of alien abductions. if you want the
    scientific/medical community to recognize what you believe THEN PROVE

    this is simply the most moronic piece of writing I have ever read.

    why don't you two go back to your iblindness forum and just stay
    there. or is it because not many people post there (wonder why?) and
    you are trying to come over here and troll around to get your jollies.
    p.clarkii, May 20, 2007
  4. otisbrown

    DoctorRick Guest

    What are you trying to do? Is this some kind of ridiculous scare
    tactic to get people interested in your dumb plus lens theories? Are
    you just trying to stir up a little hornets nest here so you can get
    your daily dose of mental masturbation? Go away you old fool.
    DoctorRick, May 20, 2007
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dr. Rick,

    Subject: The doctors who provid no warnings about RISK.

    I am sorry you do not provide honest facts about the
    risk a person faces who is at -6 diopters. But
    this is EXACTLY what the person said who was
    examined by an optometrist BEFORE he developed
    that detached retina. It is this ATTITUDE of yours
    that is the problem, and I think you have proven
    my point.

    And yes, you are "nowheresville" as you
    so elequently state.

    And yes, there are second-opinion optometrist
    who DO CARE about this issue, and help their
    own childern avoid entry into a negative refractive

    otisbrown, May 20, 2007
  6. otisbrown

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Dear Otis,

    The guys here say that you avoid answering inconvenient questions. Is
    that true?
    If it is, you certainly wouldn't do it to me, would you? Because if
    you would, I might start to believe what they are saying about you.
    Ne, it couldn't be, because you seem to always be polite and
    civilized. So would you please answer my question above re your own
    detached retina?

    I really am not just trying to tease you. As somebody who has
    recently experienced this ultimate nightmare of detached retina, I
    have a sincere and genuine interest in the subject. Did it happen to
    me because I was a bad girl with bad reading habits? Could I have
    avoided it by listening to Kaze and let nature or you direct me? But
    most importantly, could I have changed permanently the shape of my
    elongated myopic eyes (though only moderately myopic and not in the
    high risk category), like you did, thus skipping the macular hole,
    retinal detachment and cataract altogether?

    Please Otis, prove the old guys here wrong and don't ignore me and my
    questions. Tell me and the millions of myopes about your own detached
    retina. Thanks.
    Ms.Brainy, May 20, 2007
  7. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    No. Our position is that you are wrong and your outdated theories
    badly irrelevant.

    Of course, feel free to carp about the perils of myopia. Nobody wants
    to be myopic, or hyperopic for that matter. We all want our children
    to be perfect in every way. Somehow nature gets in the way of a good
    plan. As I recall, you wanted to be a pilot, but your bad eye genes
    spoiled those plans.

    Have a nice day.

    Dr. Leukoma, May 20, 2007
  8. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ms.Brainy,

    Subject: Reject the word "cure". Just say prevent
    a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.

    Let me answer your questions this way:

    Dr. Raphaelson spelled out his efforts with the general
    public for prevention, and their reaction to it -- in the "Printer's

    I concluded that you could NOT deliever plus-prevention with
    the public walking in off the street and expecting very, VERY
    sharp vision in five minutes. I simply do not get
    into that type of argument.

    On the basis of pure science, I say the following:

    1. If you take a population of fundamental eyes, and place
    a -3 diopter lens on them, they will change their refractive STATE
    by -2 diopter in less than six months. This proves the dynamic
    quality of the natural eye.

    2. I accept this as SCIENTIFIC proof. This does indicate
    that while the minus works in five minutes, and is impressive
    in that sense, it does have a serious secondary problem.

    3. So we are ONLY talking about prevention, or avoidance
    of a negative refractive STATE, and BEFORE any minus lens
    is applied.

    4. I agree that it is only preventable, and that once you
    begin wearing that wretched minus, you will not be
    able to get out of it, or in your parlence, there is
    no "cure", only prevention if you have the motivation
    for it.

    To further clarify:

    Brainy> Otis,

    Is it true that you had a detached retina?

    Otis> Incipient detached retina. I had a burst of floaters, and
    curved lines that I knew were straight. Since I was at -6 diopters
    I was aware how risky that situation was for me. I contacted
    a retina specialist, who checked, and used a laser to
    attach the retina to the sclera. Thus this was a PREVENTIVE
    issue for me.

    Brainy> Was it before or after (or
    perhaps while)you cured your myopia?

    Otis> Read the above. Once you START with the minus, you
    will, not be able to get out of it. While there is some prospect
    of clearing your vision from 20/60 (if you have the motivation),
    beyond that point you can not get out of it. Thus the
    discussion with my nephew, and his choice in the matter.

    Brainy> Do you have data of the risk of
    reformed myopes?

    Otis> If by "myopes" you mean a Snellen of 20/60, and
    a refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters, then the data-base
    is very small.

    Please tell!

    Otis> I will post the remarks that Dr. Perkins made on
    the "Morbidity of Myopia", in due course.

    Otis> In fact, AVOID entry to myopia, is a major reason
    why a parent should be interested in helping his child
    in the use of PREVENTIVE methods, that are far
    more important that "the plus".

    Otis> In effect, these methods (that can involve the plus)
    must be taught to the parent and child, understood
    and acted on.

    Otis> Just one man's opinion.
    otisbrown, May 21, 2007
  9. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    a/k/a "ducking them."
    Oh, God. Not that again.
    Or explain the deficiencies in your argument, or keep up with modern
    science, etc., etc.
    That my myopic niece, Joy, unequivocally PROVES that the plus lens
    doesn't work.

    Thank you.
    But I never speak of his (illegitimate?) myopic sister, Joy. For her,
    it didn't work. Hmm. Sort of shoots apart the theory, no?
    Neil Brooks, May 21, 2007
  10. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I agree with the emphasis on preventive methods. Unfortunately, a
    proven universal preventive method -- other than the use of atropine
    -- is lacking. Therefore, unless you are advocating the use of
    atropine or pirenzepine, then you are misleading people by inferring
    that universal myopia prevention is possible. Even pirenzepine
    doesn't work universally.

    You have myopic genes. Therefore, your entry into myopia was

    Dr. Leukoma, May 21, 2007
  11. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ms. Brainy,

    Subject: Children and their wretched reading habits
    (reading at -10 diopters or more) -- as a habit,
    and for long periods of time.

    I think both the parents and child should be
    informed in a competent of the risks of
    allowing their children to read in this manner.

    This is NOT a medical subject at this time. But rather
    a matter of intelligence and judgement of the parents
    about the proven effect that a long-term NEAR envirornment
    on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.

    The question is, "...who is responsible". I think this
    is more a matter of education, that it is a medical

    Just teaching the child to always keep his eyes at LEAST
    12 inches from the page at all times would be a start.

    But this sort of understanding places more responsibility
    on parent and the child.

    But I respect the issue in this way. Is it the responsibility
    of the N.I.H. to prevent obesity in young children -- or
    is the responsibilty of the parent and the child?

    I think THAT is the issue.

    To further respond:

    Otis> No they avoid all questions related to testing the
    fundamental eye for its dynamic quality and charistic.
    This is a matter of them avoiding proven scientific facts,
    or trying to deflect them for the convenience of quick-fixing
    the public with a minus lens in five minutes. (But keep
    in mind the "Printer's Son", and ask the question how
    could ANYONE help the printer's son when the only
    thing he understood was a quick-fix with that minus?
    The responsibility must rest with the person himself,
    if he wants to change this situation for his child.

    Otis> Acpting the proven dynamic behavior of the natural
    eye, then I answered your questions on a scientific level.
    Or, in terms of the preventive second-opinion as experessed
    by Steve Leung.

    Because if
    Otis> You are free to believe anything you wish.
    Otis> As compared to the foul mouth some of the majority-opinion
    have -- when they see they will lose the argument on
    scientific grounds.

    So would you please answer my question above re your own
    Otis> As I have.
    Otis> And I am not trying to give you a hard time either. But
    just presenting the second-opinion -- in case you have children,
    and they do not wish to follow your foot steps.

    As somebody who has
    Otis> Same for me. That is the reason (among others) to
    follow the logic of Jacob Raphaelson's second-opinion.

    Did it happen to
    Otis> See the graphic. It develops because BOTH OF US,
    have that habit of starting to read at -3 diopters, but slowly
    putting our eyes on the book (almost), and reading
    at -10 diopters.

    Could I have
    Otis> No, Brainy, you would have to think for yourself, and
    make your own choice in this matter.

    Otis> I explicitly stated that I am FOR avoiding ENTRY into
    a negative refractive STATE, and suggest that it is possible.
    These majority-opinion ODs claim that avoiding ENTRY
    into a negative state is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Otis> They further state that reading at -10 diopters for
    long period of time has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE
    STATE OF THE NATURAL EYE. I disagree for
    the reasons of science, and scientific facts.

    thus skipping the macular hole,
    Otis> If they would hold up the reaction of the "Printer's Son",
    then I would agree that prevention is impossible for them,
    because of the ignorance of the father in that case.
    You can not have BOTH a quick-fix and prevention. You
    will have to make an intelligent choice on the threshold
    as Dr. Stirling Colage did.

    and don't ignore me and my
    Otis> I am not. Read and understand the above. But do
    a lot more thinking with that brain of yours.

    Tell me and the millions of myopes about your own detached
    Otis> That is INCIPIENT detached retina.

    Just one man's opinion


    - Hide quoted text -
    otisbrown, May 21, 2007
  12. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    If only that were all that you did ....
    Optometrists talk visual hygiene all the time. You just don't know
    Nobody knows what that means--least of all you.
    So ... who ruined Joy's eyesight? Was it you?
    Visual hygiene is taught by optometrists all the time. Just because
    you're unaware of that doesn't make its converse true.
    No. Not really. The issue--as always--is: what has been proven to be
    both safe and effective. That's what gets prescribed, advised,
    dispensed, and directed.

    The "system" doesn't tend to support sales of snake oil.

    I'm sorry you weren't allowed to pursue your dream of being a
    commercial pilot, but ... pretending to know the standards of practice
    in optometry is reprehensible. You do it, quite obviously, only an
    element to buttress your conspiracy theory. It's rather shameful,

    What's Leung doing for HIS kids that you didn't do TO your niece,
    Joy? How come Joy's a myope with a restricted license, then?

    Where's Leung's published data, anyway?

    Neil Brooks, May 21, 2007
  13. otisbrown

    DoctorRick Guest

    Sorry to hear about your detachment.

    I suppose you now realize that Otis never answers questions directly.
    I think he is incapable of maintaining a linear comprehensible train
    of thought.

    Otis would have us believe that literacy, leading to reading, which
    leads to myopia, and then leads to retinal detachment, is the cause.
    We should all avoid reading or otherwise we will all have retinal

    And by the way Otis is significantly nearsighted. His technique
    failed to work on him, or his neice Joy. Otis is full of hot air.
    DoctorRick, May 21, 2007
  14. otisbrown

    DoctorRick Guest

    And how would you know how I counsel my patients?
    Steve Leung is a freak. No one accepts what he says. There is no
    proof for it. Please provide us a longer list of "second opinion"
    experts aside from the strango living in the far east that you treat
    as a god.

    And how come you are nearsighted; can't you cure yourself? And how
    come your niece is nearsighted; you started treating her "at the
    threshold" and it still didn't work? And how come published studies
    show that plus lenses, undercorrection, taking glasses off to read,
    and use of bifocals are ineffective at preventing myopia? Why should
    you expect people to believe an old washed-up retired engineer who has
    nothing better to do all day than post bullcrap on the internet
    compared to numerous highly-regarded academic research groups studying
    myopia around the world? NONE of them agree with your theory. It was
    disproved decades ago.

    Now please, tell us about some of your conspiracy theories. Those are
    the most entertaining and serve to solidify everyones impressions that
    you are a paranoid psychopath.
    DoctorRick, May 21, 2007
  15. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    its all for the better what with his obvious psychological disorders
    p.clarkii, May 21, 2007
  16. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    well then your criterion for the acceptance of something as scientific
    proof is pathetic. the decades old study that you keep quoting proves
    that a species of monkey, who has a -3.00 diopter lens sutured onto
    its eye even though it had no refractive error, developed an apparent
    myopia later when the lens was removed and its eye was refracted.

    now what does that say about humans?

    now what does that say about humans who definitely are myopic and need
    a minus lens to focus light from distant objects on the retina so as
    to simulate emmetropia and properly correct their vision?

    obviously your extrapolation of an old experiment where monkeys were
    cruelly-treated and had excessively-strong minus lenses sewed onto
    their eyes does not AT ALL relate to humans wearing accurately
    measured prescription glasses.

    and then there is that experiment, that WAS performed in humans, where
    excessive minus lenses WERE applied to children's eyeglass
    prescriptions, and showed that no increase in myopia occurred. (Goss,
    D. (1984)

    why don't you just give up otis? why are you coming back to this
    forum to be thoroughly discredited and embarrassed again?
    p.clarkii, May 21, 2007
  17. otisbrown

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Dear Otis,

    Let's roll back. You began this thread by telling us the high risk of
    myopes developing detached retina. Did you post it just to alarm all
    for the danger? Had it been so, I would say you should be commended.
    Indeed, until several months ago I, together with most people, never
    even heard of retinal detachment since it's not a subject that's
    discussed outside of forums like this, and I have been in this forum
    only a couple of months.

    But I suspect that your intention was different. Somehow I feel that
    there was a hidden message in your post. What you REALLY wanted to
    say is that myopia is a dangerous and not so benign condition,
    therefore preventing (if not "curing") myopia is very desirable as it
    may save many of us from the misfortune of retinal detachment, which
    may bring to blindness if not treated promptly.

    I have also noticed that you are very active on the "i-see" yahoo
    group, although it seems that even there nobody endorses your "plus"
    theory, as they are all preoccupied with various methods of myopia
    cure by eye exercise of various kinds, and some of them even report
    personal success.

    My response to you was aimed at finding out whether you, or they,
    claim change in eye shape as a result of your (or their) treatment.
    Because if the myopic elongated eye can be brought back to a perfect
    spherical shape, then perhaps myopia cure (or prevention, as you wish)
    may save us from the dreaded detached retina, but otherwise I have no
    idea what your purpose was in starting this thread.

    Oh, I hope you know that I am not part of the "conspiracy", since I
    don't make my living from selling spectacles to innocent victims and
    have no invested interest in increasing the rate of myopia in the

    When you answer, I would appreciate straight answers. Thanks.
    Ms.Brainy, May 21, 2007
  18. otisbrown

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Do you have any statistical data?
    Ms.Brainy, May 21, 2007
  19. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    data? otis?

    p.clarkii, May 21, 2007
  20. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ms. Brany,

    Subject: Statistical data on refractive STATES more negative than -6

    Yes, the title of the paper is, "Morbidity from Myopia", by
    E. S. Perkins, M. D.

    "High myopia is recognized as a significant
    cause of ocular disease, but
    most ophthamologists look upon lower degrees
    of myopia as little more than a mild social disability
    withiout any serious consequences.

    It is it purpose of this paper to review the morbidity of
    myopia and to suggest that even the lower
    degrees of myopia are associated with conditions resulting
    in significant ocular morbidity.

    Dr. Perkins

    otisbrown, May 21, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.